Posted on 07/30/2016 4:23:16 AM PDT by NYer
The Didaché, a brief, anonymous Christian treatise, was written between the years 65 and 80 (according to most scholars) and held in the highest esteem by the early Church Fathers.
It is considered that the Didaché, also known as “the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” or simply “The Teaching” (“Didaché” means “teaching” in Greek), is a letter that belongs to the very first Christian corpus of literary production. It is considered the first and oldest written catechism, and as such has been respected and preserved to this day.
Both the author and the place where the Didaché was written remain unknown. The original text of the Didaché has survived in a single manuscript, the Codex Hierosolymitanus. Some scholars speak of a compiler instead of an author, who might have also written down some teachings directly from apostolic preaching, either in Syria or Egypt. After the text was lost for years, the Metropolitan of Istanbul, Philoteos Bryennios found a Greek copy in 1873 and published it in 1883. The copy had been written 1056.
The main value of this treatise is that it provides us with extra-biblical data regarding the institutions and life of the earliest Christian communities. The Didaché codifies the rules and moral, liturgical and legal dispositions of the early Church that were considered to be convenient and necessary at the time it was written. It is almost exclusively comprised of “practical” teachings, leaving aside any discussion concerning the dogmatic contents of faith, except in Chapter 16.
There are very few quotations from the Old Testament to be found in the Didaché; instead, the author speaks of the “Gospel of the Lord” (without specifying which of the Synoptics he or she might be referring to), and quotes and alludes to around twenty sayings or statements of Jesus Christ: ten of them literally, and others in paraphrase. Moreover, the author seems to ignore the Gospel of John, and none of St. Paul’s epistles is formally cited.
The issues raised by the Didaché are varied. In addition to authorship and dating, the treatise’s relationship with other Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of Barnabas, and even with Jewish prayers like the Kiddush, the Amidah, or the so called “manual of discipline” of the Essene community at Qumran, have all been the subject of study.
The Didaché contains the first known instructions for the celebration of both Baptism and the Eucharist, as well as one of the three early known forms of the Lord’s Prayer. If we consider the various translations of the work, the geographical dispersion of the fragments found and the list of later works that depend on it, the Didaché should be more well known among Christians today.
If you want to read the Didaché, here’s a full version of it, in English.
What do they go on to prove the Greek copy written 1000 years AFTER the time the original was supposed to have been written is an accurate copy? And how could such an important document - if it really was that important to the church - be lost for all that time? I think whatever the Didache states should be taken reservedly and not be used to base church doctrines and practices on.
This question is best answered by Kolokotronis.
You know, it never occurred to me to question the authenticity of what we call the Didache beyond the obvious understanding that copyists often made mistakes, though far fewer than translators. The Bible used in the West is a classic example of that.
The Didache we read today is in fact consistent with the quotes from it and principles cited by the Fathers going back at least to St. Irenaeus of Lyon which is a pretty good indication of the accuracy of our copy. At base, though, I suppose we accept it because, like the OT and the NT, The Church does.
Above link no work.
It is prettty plain that the early catholic Church did not believe it was genuine or it would seem it would have been part of the new testament.
I don`t know what to think about it
I am impressed with it in a manner that is greater than any of the other “pseudo gospels” that get more current press and definitely are from the gnostic realm. I was also impressed when I found Mr. Swett’s analysis of it and his reasoning for this being perhaps the earliest writing we have.
If you havent read his analysis, I recommend you do.
Which is more Catholic sophistry, for the sure Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles is what the Holy Spirit inspired men to write, and if the Didaché is apostolic doctrine then Catholics are guilty of not obeying it.
Plus, the didache is so riddled with error it’s embarrassing the catholics continue to cite it for history/teaching purposes.
I've often wondered why the rcc didn't make this and the Protoevangalium of James, due in part to it's "account" of Mary, as part of the canon at Trent when they approved their NT.
That they didn't is telling.
Really?
Tell that to Jesus.
Or Stephen.
Or Paul.
Or Peter, who was crucified upside down.
Or Christians fed to the lions, burned at the stake, boiled in oil......
The parts from Scripture can be found in Scripture.
The parts that aren’t are not, and some are just outright wrong, so why bother reading them?
Why not go right to the source instead and read the Word of God itself?
The Didaché, a brief, anonymous Christian treatise, was written between the years 65 and 80 (according to most scholars) and held in the highest esteem by the early Church Fathers.
It is considered that the Didaché, also known as “the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” or simply “The Teaching” (“Didaché” means “teaching” in Greek), is a letter that belongs to the very first Christian corpus of literary production. It is considered the first and oldest written catechism, and as such has been respected and preserved to this day.
Both the author and the place where the Didaché was written remain unknown. The original text of the Didaché has survived in a single manuscript, the Codex Hierosolymitanus. Some scholars speak of a compiler instead of an author, who might have also written down some teachings directly from apostolic preaching, either in Syria or Egypt. After the text was lost for years, the Metropolitan of Istanbul, Philoteos Bryennios found a Greek copy in 1873 and published it in 1883. The copy had been written 1056.
The main value of this treatise is that it provides us with extra-biblical data regarding the institutions and life of the earliest Christian communities.
There are very few quotations from the Old Testament to be found in the Didaché; instead, the author speaks of the “Gospel of the Lord” (without specifying which of the Synoptics he or she might be referring to), and quotes and alludes to around twenty sayings or statements of Jesus Christ: ten of them literally, and others in paraphrase. Moreover, the author seems to ignore the Gospel of John, and none of St. Paul’s epistles is formally cited.
Sounds like something that; if you hung your hat on it; you might have to pick it up from the floor.
Tony Jones's book, The Teaching of the Twelve, unpacks this ancient document with insight and perspective, and traces the life of a small house church in Missouri that is trying to live according to its precepts.
Listen to Tony Jones read the complete text, or download a pdf, or read the complete text online.
The Didache includes two primitive and unusual prayers for the Eucharist ("thanksgiving"),[3] which is the central act of Christian worship.[39] It is the earliest text to refer to this rite as the Eucharist.[39]
Chapter 9 begins:
And concerning the broken bread:
The Didache basically describes the same ritual as the one that took place in Corinth.[40] As with Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, the Didache confirms that the Lord's supper was literally a meal, probably taking place in a "house church."[41] The order of cup and bread differs both from present-day Christian practice and from that in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper,[42] of which, again unlike almost all present-day Eucharistic celebrations, the Didache makes no mention. Scholars once traced the Eucharistic prayers back to Jesus' words at the Last Supper, but contemporary scholars emphasize Jewish and gentile sources instead.[41]
Chapter 10 gives a thanksgiving after a meal. The contents of the meal are not indicated: chapter 9 does not exclude other elements as well that the cup and bread, which are the only ones it mentions, and chapter 10, whether it was originally a separate document or continues immediately the account in chapter 9, mentions no particular elements, not even wine and bread. Instead it speaks of the "spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant" that it distinguishes from the "food and drink (given) to men for enjoyment that they might give thanks to (God)". After a doxology, as before, come the apocalyptic exclamations: "Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen". The prayer is reminiscent of Revelation 22:17–20 and 1Corinthians 16:22.[43]
These prayers make no reference to the redemptive death of Christ, or remembrance, as formulated by Paul the Apostle in 1Corinthians 11:23–34, see also Atonement in Christianity. Didache 10 doesn't even use the word "Christ," which appears only one other time in the whole tract.
John Dominic Crossan endorses John W. Riggs' 1984 The Second Century article for the proposition that 'there are two quite separate eucharistic celebrations given in Didache 9–10, with the earlier one now put in second place."[44] The section beginning at 10.1 is a reworking of the Jewish birkat ha-mazon, a three-strophe prayer at the conclusion of a meal, which includes a blessing of God for sustaining the universe, a blessing of God who gives the gifts of food, earth, and covenant, and a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem; the content is "Christianized", but the form remains Jewish.[45] It is similar to the Syrian Church eucharist rite of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, belonging to "a primordial era when the euchology of the Church had not yet inserted the Institution Narrative in the text of the Eucharistic Prayer."[46]
Isn't it obvious?
Rome erred in it's compilation of the NT and has to use TRADITION to justify some of it's practices.
1. On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;
2. But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled.
3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king," saith the Lord, "and my name is wonderful among the heathen."
I would agree on the parts that are directly attributed to Scripture passages. It's one of the ways we can know we have accurate manuscript copies of Scripture by there being direct quotes taken from the Biblical books throughout the writings of the ECFs. I look at the Didache as probably the work of someone who took notes while hearing the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles before the widespread availability of the written Scripture gathered together in a codice. Some churches may have had all the writings and others only a partial collection. Paul advised that his writings also be read in other local churches and not just the one it may have been addressed to.
There is no denying that the Didache contains things NOT found in Scripture which indicates to me that it may have been a document that was added to over the centuries. With the Bible books, we at least have ALL the manuscript copies written in the original languages, though some are only partially preserved due to the fragile condition of the material they were written on. There are actually THOUSANDS of manuscript copies or partial copies. I don't think that is true with the Didache.
Again, I don't think the Didache has the authority of the inspired Scripture and is why I think it is more of an historical document rather than a doctrinal guide for Christians.
That is the negative and inferior version of what the Lord taught, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) For this requires proactive actions, in contrast simply avoiding actions, and this inferior version is what is usually taught in pagan religions.
Now, the teaching of these words is this: "Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those that persecute you
This is not a quote from Scripture, for while fasting may be included with prayer, this is not what Scripture says, but "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44) "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." (Luke 6:28)
"If any man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also," and thou wilt be perfect.
This quote "and thou wilt be perfect" also is not part of what Christ said here, (Mt. 5:39) for non-retaliation is only one part of Christian maturity and by itself does not constitute it.
Blessed is he that gives according to the mandate; for he is innocent; but he who receives it without need shall be tried as to why he took and for what, and being in prison he shall be examined as to his deeds, and "he shall not come out thence until he pay the last farthing."
This also is an addition to Scripture, and would condemn receiving a gift out of politeness though one does not truly need it, and in which case it could be passed on. And no where does this mandate a prison sentence that requires full restitution, which words were lifted from Christ's teaching about reconciling with a brother who hath ought against thee. (Mt. 5:26) This condemnation sounds too much like the censorious judgment against the "woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his [Christ's] head, as he sat at meat." (Matthew 26:7) "For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor" (Matthew 26:9) who needed it.
But concerning this it was also said, "Let thine alms sweat into thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving."
This also is an addition to Scripture, and contrary to the spirit of "freely ye have received, freely give," (Matthew 10:8) for as with grace given to minister healing, "what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) It also seems contrary to a later exhortation in the Didache, "Thou shalt not hesitate to give..."
6. Of whatsoever thou hast gained by thy hands thou shalt give a ransom for thy sins.
This also is not what Scripture says, for while it can be said that charity covers a multitude of sins, 1 Peter 4:8; Prov. 10:12) in the sense of burying faults under fervent charity, (cf. Prov. 17:9) giving material things as a for sins is seen in the OT (Lv. 5:11-17) as part of the typological sacrificial system, but the only real ransom (antilutron) is the blood atonement, which only Christ fulfilled: "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:6)
Do not test or examine any prophet who is speaking in a spirit, "for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven."
Yet Scripture contextually applies this text (Mt. 12:24-32) to attributing the manifestly supernatural works of Christ to the devil in order to justify rejection of them, despite lack of Scriptural warrant, but Scripture admonishes,
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
But not everyone who speaks in a spirit is a prophet, except he have the behaviour of the Lord. From his behaviour, then, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known.
Not necessarily, for prophesy is a gift which even the infamous Balaam had, even in Messianic prophesy, (Num. 24:15-19) while most of the most Godly believers were not/are not prophets. Thus one again the contrast btwn Scriptural apostolic teaching and this purported apostolic document is manifest.
And no prophet who orders a meal in a spirit shall eat of it: otherwise he is a false prophet.
Sounds more like talmudic-type superstition than Scripture.
And every prophet who teaches truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet.
Yet Balaam was a true prophet, but disobedient.
But no prophet who has been tried and is genuine, though he enact a worldly mystery of the Church, if he teach not others to do what he does himself, shall be judged by you: for he has his judgment with God, for so also did the prophets of old.
The Didache before stated that a genuine prophet was one who has the behaviour of the Lord, and thus according to their own judgment this excludes those who enact worldly mysteries. And as what we do speaks louder than what we say, then such a one is teaching others. Thus this document continues to example poor teaching.
Let every Apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord, But let him not stay more than one day, or if need be a second as well; but if he stay three days, he is a false prophet.
If he who comes is a traveller, help him as much as you can, but he shall not remain with you more than two days, or, if need be, three.
Which also sounds like talmudic-type superstition that is without basis in Scripture, and contrary to it:
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18)
And it came to pass, that he [Peter] tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner. (Acts 9:43)
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. (Acts 21:8-10)
And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. (Acts 21:4)
Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou didst receive, "Adding nothing to it and taking nothing away."
Both of which this so-called apostolic document does.
Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you[r] fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Which also is nowhere taught in the wholly inspired word of God, as instead the Lord states "when ye fast.." (Mt. 6:16) Nor does Catholicism follow what the Didache teaches here.
And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, pray thus: "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us from the Evil One, for thine is the power and the glory for ever." 3. Pray thus three times a day. The Lord did not command this to be prayed thrice daily, and in fact He did not command this prayer to be said, but presented it as a model as to "how" to pray: "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name...." (Matthew 6:9)
And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist thus: 2. First concerning the Cup, "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child; to thee be glory for ever." 3. And concerning the broken Bread: "We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever.
Which prayer is not in Scripture, nor does it refer to transubstantiation. and is not Catholic Eucharistic prayer of consecration. And there is actually nothing in the Eucharistic prayer of the Didache that teaches transubstantiation, unless "Give not that which is holy to the dogs" and "blessed with spiritual food and drink and eternal light through thy Child" is made to mean such, yet all Christian eating is "sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:5) And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed: "
And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)
And to the word of God as spiritual food: (Psalms 19:10; 119:103; Jer. 15:16; Ezek. 2:8; 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)
And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) correspond to,
"Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)
Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (dâkâ') means to crumble, to break..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," all of which figuratively correspond to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.
But after you are satisfied with food, thus give thanks:
Which refers not to a wafer of bread, but to a communal meal of such proportion as to physically satisfy one with food, contrary to Catholicism.
On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; 2. But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king," saith the Lord, "and my name is wonderful among the heathen."
Nothing is said of a sacrifice for sins offered by separate class of believers distinctively called priests here, while besides praise, giving and and service, the personal sacrifice which Scripture enjoins upon believers is that of their own body. (Rm. 12:1)
Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord
Unlike Catholicism, this only refers to two offices, as in Scripture, with a bishop [episkopos] and episkopos referring to those in the same ffice. (Titus 1:5-7)
Right.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am Orthodox, not a Latin Catholic and we DO fast on Wednesdays and Fridays!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.